Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[frogwoman]

its still pretty disgusting imo that people are trying to claim any kind of anti-semitism in this.


A major part of anti-semitism is the concept that the jews all have one "hive mind" and that they are all either responsible for or agree with the actions of a few, its fucking grotesque that people still have to separate out real anti-semitism from criticisms of israel and anti-zionism. who exactly do the people who say that its anti-semitic to criticise israel or that its not but in this case blah blah blah think this is benefiting.

real anti-semites watch people tie themselves up into knots over this and laugh their heads off.

 

[dylans]

Spymaster thanks for making your position clear. I see your arguments in a different light now

 

[Spymaster]

The only use of the word 'psychotic' in this thread up till now has been by you - so don't misrepresent me.

But you've asserted that you believe the soldiers shot surrendering civilians. That'd be a psychotic act wouldn't it?

You've already said that you haven't read the thread/links, so how do you know whether these reports are biased?

I've read and observed all links and everything posted since page 40, and anything referred to me by others prior to that.

Are you saying there's something I've missed? If so show me where and I'll take a look.

 

[Random]

My goodness, what a long thread this has become!

Sass got banned?

 

[danny la rouge]

But you've asserted that you believe the soldiers shot surrendering civilians. That'd be a psychotic act wouldn't it?

The IDF have ample previous. Including a famous incident documented by aid agencies of an IDF armoured vehicle plowing over a disabled Palestinian in a wheel chair.

 

[Spymaster]

No, but it's better than using gunboats, helicopters, stun grenades, tear gas, rubber bullets and live rounds. Or have I missed something?

Of course you have. What you've missed is that it wasn't a choice between the two. The protestors should have laid down their spanners the second the troops left the helicopters.

Again, why compound a shitty, immoral, illegal act, with a stupid one?

Spymaster thanks for making your position clear. I see your arguments in a different light now

No problem.

 

[frogwoman]

My goodness, what a long thread this has become!

Sass got banned?

Yeah for referring to anti-israeli posters as the kind of people who would like to operate gas chambers and be in the SS.

 

[quimcunx]

My goodness, what a long thread this has become!

Sass got banned?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=325965

 

[rioted]

What have you done, btw?

What? Apart from procuring supplies, raising money for activists to travel, lobbying the British and Israeli governments, attending demonstrations, writing to the press, trying to involve all my friends, trade union branch and neighbourhood in protest? Absolutely nothing.

Your posts concentrate on what the flotilla did wrong. And, yes, there were probably some. But their effect pales into insignificance next to the Israeli action and propaganda exercise. Raising all the concerns you repeatedly do about the actions of those murdered plays straight into the hands of the Israeli military. Excuse me for thinking that's what you design it to be.

 

[Spymaster]

Sass got banned?

Back today I think.

The IDF have ample previous.

Too fucking right they do. That's precisely why resisting an armed IDF assault with pick axe handles is a very bad idea.

 

[rioted]

Again, why compound a shitty, immoral, illegal act, with a stupid one?.

Perhaps the stupid act was a spur of the moment thing by panicking people under fire, whilst the shitty, immoral, illegal act was weeks in the planning and carried out by highly-trained professionals? Why concentrate on the former unless you want to legitimise the latter?

 

[danny la rouge]

Perhaps the stupid act was a spur of the moment thing by panicking people under fire, whilst the shitty, immoral, illegal act was weeks in the planning and carried out by highly-trained professionals? Why concentrate on the former unless you want to legitimise the latter?

I'm pretty sure Spy agrees with this, but has put his concerns in a way that have been magnified in a polarising light by people who are understandibly angry at Israel. I think Spy is wrong to focus on the self-defence, when the assault is the issue in question. But we are all complicit in this if we continue.

Here are the important things:

1. The illegal and immoral blockade.

2. The illegl and immoral attack on the aid convoy.

 

[Maidmarian]

I'm pretty sure Spy agrees with this, but has put his concerns in a way that have been magnified in a polarising light by people who are understandibly angry at Israel. I think Spy is wrong to focus on the self-defence, when the assault is the issue in question. But we are all complicit in this if we continue.

Here are the important things:

1. The illegal and immoral blockade.

2. The illegl and immoral attack on the aid convoy.

Yep.

 

[Spymaster]

What? Apart from procuring supplies, raising money for activists to travel, lobbying the British and Israeli governments, attending demonstrations, writing to the press, trying to involve all my friends, trade union branch and neighbourhood in protest?

Yes, apart from all that.

( well done, btw)

Your posts concentrate on what the flotilla did wrong.

The situation is the sum of it's parts. I've outright condemned the Israeli blockade and the Gaza situation. I've condemned the illegal military action by the IDF.

I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, and I go on to further condemn what I consider to be a grossly unwise defence action, that almost certainly caused unnecessary bloodshed.

 

[tangentlama]

So how many people have been murdered over the years after hitting Israeli soldiers with sticks? And how many have been murdered without being anywhere near a stick? The IDF have form: the idea that you'd be safe if you didn't have any sort of weapon is ludicrous. You really are desperate.

How about this. Schoolchildren throwing stones at soldiers were responded to (how?)

a) by asking the headmaster/mistress to place sanctions on the children for their unacceptable behaviour?

b) by working with both parents and school to improve the behaviour of schoolchildren towards the occupying power?

c) by throwing a stun grenade into the school playground, firing rubber bullets at the schoolchildren or any other type of military response?

Answers here:
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/twilight-zone-i-ve-lost-my-heart-1.211048
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ID=5&sbSubContrassID=0listSrc=Y&itemNo=216776
http://www.sis.gov.eg/online/html3/o121220d.htm

And for comparison, this is how Palestinian children are treated by the military, children who were playing or walking to visit Grandparents and not throwing stones:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...choolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1306747,00.html

 

[Maidmarian]

Yes, apart from all that.

( well done, btw)



The situation is the sum of it's parts. I've outright condemned the Israeli blockade and the Gaza situation. I've condemned the illegal military action by the IDF.

I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, and I go on to further condemn what I consider to be a grossly unwise defence action, that almost certainly caused unnecessary bloodshed.

Sorry spy, but I don't accept that the aid workers "caused" the bloodshed.

 

[tangentlama]

The situation is the sum of it's parts. I've outright condemned the Israeli blockade and the Gaza situation. I've condemned the illegal military action by the IDF.

I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, and I go on to further condemn what I consider to be a grossly unwise defence action, that almost certainly caused unnecessary bloodshed.

You can't say that the cause of the bloodshed was the manner of defense, since we know for a fact that the ship was being fired upon before the ship was boarded, and we know that two of the injured died as a direct result of treatable injuries not being treated (bullets to some part of the body, most likely).

 

[Fedayn]

No it's not.

You've attempted to similize the struggle of persecuted jews in the Warsaw ghetto, who were fighting for their lives and had some hope of victory, with the attempted defence of the Marmara by individuals whose maximum sanction if unsuccessful is probably deportation, unless they hit soldiers with sticks (in which case the prognosis is far worse), and whose chances of success are absolutely zero.

Do you see why this is ridiculous?

Do you really want to equate the defence of a small boat against impossible odds, with the holocaust?

Really?

I'm not equating the two at all. Merely establishing at what point you would you take part in/justify/support self-defence. The issue re the Warsaw Ghetto was that you supported resistacne against far more horrendous odds and a far, far, far more brutal and murderous enemy than those Israelis who boarded the boat.

 

[Spymaster]

Perhaps the stupid act was a spur of the moment thing by panicking people under fire ....

Perhaps, perhaps not. Unlikely in my view given the video and reports that we've seen on this thread, protestors saying that they were prepared to defend the ship etc.

Why concentrate on the former unless you want to legitimise the latter?

Because the former was a massive contributory factor to the deaths here, in my current opinion, and the latter are not the points on which I've been engaged here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So standing up in the face of overwhelming odds and getting a few people killed in the process is bravery is it?

Hey-ho.

Well, that's your interpretation.
As we don't (and will probably never) know the actual orders the commander of the assault teams was given, we can't know whether or not more than a few "casualties" were part of the scenario.

 

[tangentlama]

Well, that's your interpretation.
As we don't (and will probably never) know the actual orders the commander of the assault teams was given, we can't know whether or not more than a few "casualties" were part of the scenario.

If you open fire onto the deck of a ship where you know people are sleeping in sleeping bags at 4am in the morning, then it can only be assumed that the IDF had no care for any injuries or fatalities that might be caused to those vulnerable people on the deck as a result of their gunfire.

This gunfire occurred before any attempts to board the vessel Mavi Mamara.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apparently surrendering to a bunch of tooled-up Israeli commandos makes you a coward!

It's a pity or the case that you're trying to make that neither the footage or reportage shows a demand for surrender, or that those aid workers who weren't resisting were treated as if they'd surrendered. As far as I can make out, they were still beaten.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can't. I think it's fucking stupid.

You epitomise the character in Pastor Neimoller's poem who stood and watched.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not equating the two at all. Merely establishing at what point you would you take part in/justify/support self-defence.

You should have just asked. I support self-defence where a possible outcome of the action is favourable to that of immediate acquiescence to the aggressor/s.

The issue re the Warsaw Ghetto was that you supported resistacne against afr more horrendous opdds and a far, fare far more brutal murderous enemy than those Israelis who boarded the boat

I disagree. I'd say that even organising resistance against the might of nazi Germany had more chance of success than trying to repel armed Israeli commandos with sticks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But if resisting the assault is almost certain to result in deaths that could be avoided?

Do it anyway, right?

Again with the implication that resistance should end at the first possibility of harm.

 

[Spymaster]

Sorry spy, but I don't accept that the aid workers "caused" the bloodshed.

Ok. I believe that had the vigorous defence not taken place, there is an extremely high likelihood that lives would have been saved.

Anyone accepting the above can not conclude logically that the defence was reasonable.

Even those critical of the Israeli regime are now (on TV) referring to a group of individuals that wanted to "have a dust-up" with the Israelis.

 

[rioted]

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children.

The first soldiers on the ship were not killed, they were not shot at, they were captured by the defenders of the ship.

Moments later another bigger helicopter landed more troops and this time they fired immediately at people and killed as many as they could so that they could reach the cabin and take control of the ship.

 

[tangentlama]

Again with the implication that resistance should end at the first possibility of harm.

And without consideration that harm may have already befallen those sleeping on deck as a result of the opening gunfire from the Israelis prior to attempts to board the vessel Mavi Mamara.

 

[likesfish]

stupidity all round I'm afraid.
The brave but very stupid "we shall defend the ship by whatever means crowd" should never have been allowed on the ship.
your going up against the IDF not the met they are not going to play by any rules you can't win
its a car ferry its not going to be able to run a blockade it will be boarded at some point. So have a plan to keep as many people safe as possible.
your going to take a beating most likely offer them violence you will be killed
personally
If I'd been in charge of the idf I'd have boarded the ships in daylight with maximum show of force making it fucking obvious resistance is fucking futile.
shot across the bow helicopter gunship hovering over the bridge etc
Don't give the enemy even the illusion of having ago is an option.
then board with riot police not commandos there protesters not armed combatants.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah for referring to anti-israeli posters as the kind of people who would like to operate gas chambers and be in the SS.

No, for posting the contents of a PM in another thread.